Eruvin 144

מיתיבי אמר רבי יהודה הסבר לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על מחיצות המגיעות לתקרה שצריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה על מה נחלקו על מחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה שבית שמאי אומרים עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה ובית הלל אומרים עירוב א' לכולן

An objection was raised: R'Judah ha-Sabba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The reasoner' or 'interpreter'. R. Han. and Alfasi read: 'ha-Sabbak', 'the net-weaver'. Others 'ha-Saddar', 'who arranges (Mishnahs) in order'.');">¹</span> stated, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel do not dispute the ruling that where partitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which subdivide a large hall into small compartments.');">²</span> reach the ceiling a separate contribution to the erub is required on the part of each company; they only differ<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'concerning what are they divided?'');">³</span> where the partitions do not reach the ceiling in which case Beth Shammai maintain that a separate contribution to the 'erub must be made for each company, while Beth Hillel maintain that one contribution to the 'erub suffices for all of them.

למאן דאמר במחיצות המגיעות לתקרה מחלוקת תיובתא ולמאן דאמר במחיצות שאין מגיעות לתקרה מחלוקת סייעתא להך לישנא דאמר רב נחמן מחלוקת במסיפס תיובתא

Now, against him who stated that the dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.');">⁴</span> related only to partitions that reached the ceiling this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah's statement that they 'do not dispute . . where partitions reach the ceiling'.');">⁵</span> presents an objection; in favour of him who stated that their dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel.');">⁴</span> related only to partitions that did not reach the ceiling this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement of R. Judah that 'they only differ where the partitions do not reach the ceiling'.');">⁶</span>

להך לישנא דאמר רב נחמן אף במסיפס מחלוקת לימא תהוי תיובתא

provides support; while against that version according to which R'Nahman stated 'the dispute relates only to partitions of stakes'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that 'where the partitions were ten handbreadths high' Beth Hillel agree that a 'separate contribution. . must be made'.');">⁷</span> this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah's assertion (cf. supra n. 5) according to which Beth Hillel require no separate contributions where the partitions, though ten handbreadths high, do not reach the ceiling.');">⁸</span> presents an objection. Does this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement of R. Judah that 'they only differ where the partitions do not reach the ceiling'.');">⁶</span>

אמר לך רב נחמן פליגי במחיצה והוא הדין במסיפס והאי דקא מיפלגי במחיצה להודיעך כחן דבית הלל

however, present an objection also against that version according to which R'Nahman stated: 'The dispute relates also to partitions of stakes'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that Beth Shammai require separate contributions even where the partitions were so frail and low. Does R. Judah, it is asked (cf. supra n. 5) , imply that Beth Shammai maintain this view, even where the partitions are so low, in agreement with this view of R. Nahman, or, do they limit their view to partitions that are of some considerable height though not as high as to reach the ceiling?');">⁹</span> - R'Nahman can answer you: They differ in the case of partitions<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even where they do not reach the ceiling.');">¹⁰</span> and this applies also to partitions of stakes, and the only reason why their difference of view was expressed in the case of partitions is in order to inform you to what extent Beth Hillel venture to apply their principle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they require no separate contributions from each company even where the partitions are of some considerable height.');">¹¹</span> But why did they not express their difference of view in the case of partitions of stakes in order to inform you of the extent to which Beth Shammai, venture to apply their principle?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That even in the case of partitions of stakes Beth Shammai require each company to make a separate contribution.');">¹²</span>

וליפלגי במסיפס להודיעך כחן דב"ש כח דהיתרא עדיף

- Information on the extent of a permitted course<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the power of permissibility', since it indicates conviction and certainty of opinion.');">¹³</span> is preferable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of a certain course may be an easy way out of a legal difficulty and the result of mere lack of knowledge or conviction as to whether it could or could not be permitted.');">¹⁴</span> R'Nahman citing Rab stated: The halachah is in agreement with R'Judah ha-Sabbar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'where partitions reach the ceiling' even Beth Hillel agree that 'a separate contribution is required'.');">¹⁵</span> Said R'Nahman B'Isaac: All inference from the wording of our Mishnah also leads to the same conclusion.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רב הלכה כרבי יהודה הסבר

For it was stated: THEY AGREE, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE SOME OF THEM OCCUPY ROOMS OR UPPER CHAMBERS A SEPARATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE FRUIT MUST BE MADE FOR EACH COMPANY; now what was meant by ROOMS and what by UPPER CHAMBERS? If it be suggested that by the term ROOMS proper<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'actual'.');">¹⁶</span> rooms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., such as have never formed parts of the large hall.');">¹⁷</span> and by the term 'UPPER CHAMBERS' proper<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'actual'.');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני ומודים בזמן שמקצתן שרויין בחדרים ובעליות שצריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה מאי חדרים ומאי עליות אילימא חדרים חדרים ממש ועליות עליות ממש פשיטא אלא לאו כעין חדרים כעין עליות ומאי ניהו מחיצות המגיעות לתקרה שמע מינה

upper chambers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., such as have never formed parts of the large hall.');">¹⁷</span> were meant, is not the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That for each room a separate contribution must be made.');">¹⁸</span> obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need then was there to state the obvious?');">¹⁹</span> The terms must consequently mean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but, not?'');">²⁰</span>

תנא במה דברים אמורים כשמוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר אבל אם היה עירובן בא אצלן דברי הכל עירוב אחד לכולן

compartments like rooms or upper chambers, namely,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and what are they?'');">²¹</span> compartments the partitions of which reach the Ceiling. This is conclusive. A Tanna taught: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Beth Shammai require each company to make a separate contribution to the 'erub (v. our Mishnah) .');">²²</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא חמשה שגבו את עירובן כשמוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר עירוב אחד לכולן כמאן כבית הלל

applies only where their 'erub is carried into a place other [than the hall].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if it is deposited in one of the other houses of the courtyard.');">²³</span> but if their 'erub is remaining<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was coming'.');">²⁴</span> with them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., if the other tenants brought their contributions to the hall where the 'erub is deposited.');">²⁵</span> all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The statement of R. Judah that 'they only differ where the partitions do not reach the ceiling'.');">⁶</span>

ואיכא דאמרי במה דברים אמורים כשהיה עירוב בא אצלן אבל אם היו מוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר דברי הכל צריכין עירוב לכל חבורה וחבורה

agree that one contribution to the 'erub suffices for all of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point at issue between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel being not that of the nature of the partitions but the question whether (a) one of a group who joined in an 'erub may take that 'erub with him to another group on behalf of all his associates or whether (b) each individual of the group must separately contribute his share. The hall in question, both according to Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, combines the separate sections of each company into one domain and no 'erub among themselves alone is necessary irrespective of whether the partitions were high or low, but Beth Shammai maintain that one of them cannot represent them all in the 'erub of the courtyard and each must consequently contribute his individual share, while Beth Hillel hold that one of them may well represent all the group and, therefore, only one contrition on behalf of all of them is sufficient.');">²⁷</span> Whose view is followed in what was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'like whom goes that which was taught'.');">²⁸</span> If five residents who collected their 'erub desired to transfer to another place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to another courtyard, desiring to join in 'erub with the residents of that courtyard.');">²⁹</span> one 'erub suffices for all of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one of the group may take their 'erub (or the prescribed quantity of bread of his own on behalf of all the group) to the place into which they desired their 'erub to be transferred. Cf. supra 49b.');">³⁰</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דתניא חמשה שגבו את עירובן כשמוליכין את עירובן למקום אחר עירוב אחד לכולן כמאן דלא כחד:

- Whose view? That of Beth Hillel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 504, n. 16.');">³¹</span> Others read: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Beth Hillel hold that one contribution suffices for all the companies (v. our Mishnah) .');">³²</span> applies only where the 'erub remained<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was coming'.');">³³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האחין שהיו אוכלין על שלחן אביהם וישנים בבתיהם צריכין עירוב לכל אחד ואחד לפיכך אם שכח אחד מהם ולא עירב מבטל את רשותו

with them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 504, n. 14.');">³⁴</span> but if they carried their 'erub t a place other [than their hall]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. if it is deposited in one of the other houses of the courtyard.');">³⁵</span> all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even Beth Hillel.');">³⁶</span> agree that a separate contribution to the 'erub is required for each company.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The point at issue being whether the several companies in the one hall, who are in the same position as that of a number of tenants who joined in one 'erub, must contribute individually to the 'erub even where it is deposited in their hall, Beth Shammai maintaining that they must while Beth Hillel hold that they need not.');">³⁷</span>

אימתי בזמן שמוליכין עירובן במקום אחר אבל אם היה עירוב בא אצלן או שאין עמהן דיורין בחצר אינן צריכין לערב:

Whose view is followed in which was taught: If five residents who collected their contributions to an 'erub desired to transfer it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when they carry their 'erub'.');">³⁸</span> to another place<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 2.');">³⁹</span> one 'erub suffices for all of them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra n. 3.');">⁴⁰</span> - Whose view?

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ש"מ מקום לינה גורם אמר רב יהודה אמר רב במקבלי פרס שנו

No one's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Neither that of Beth Shammai nor that of Beth Hillel, since both agree that separate contributions are in this case required.');">⁴¹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>BROTHERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The insertion in some ed., 'who were partners' is rejected by Rashi.');">⁴²</span> WHO WERE EATING AT THEIR FATHER'S TABLE BUT SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Within the same courtyard as that of their father's house.');">⁴³</span> MUST EACH CONTRIBUTE A SHARE TO THE 'ERUB.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If they wish to join with the other tenants in the 'erub of that courtyard.');">⁴⁴</span>

ת"ר מי שיש לו בית שער אכסדרה ומרפסת בחצר חבירו הרי זה אין אוסר עליו (את) בית התבן (ואת) בית הבקר בית העצים ובית האוצרות הרי זה אוסר עליו רבי יהודה אומר אינו אוסר אלא מקום דירה בלבד

HENCE, IF ANY ONE OF THEM FORGOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE 'ERUB HE MUST<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the movement of objects in the courtyard is to be unrestricted.');">⁴⁵</span> RENOUNCE HIS RIGHT TO HIS SHARE IN THE COURTYARD. WHEN DOES THIS APPLY?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that they must each contribute to the 'erub.');">⁴⁶</span> WHEN THEY CARRY THEIR 'ERUB INTO SOME OTHER PLACE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. to a house of one of the other tenants. The reason is given in the GEMARA:');">⁴⁷</span>

אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בבן נפחא שהיו לו חמש חצרות באושא ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו אינו אוסר אלא בית דירה בלבד

BUT IF THEIR 'ERUB IS DEPOSITED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'was coming');">⁴⁸</span> WITH THEM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In their father's house.');">⁴⁹</span> OR IF THERE ARE NO OTHER TENANTS WITH THEM IN THE COURTYARD THEY NEED NOT PREPARE ANY 'ERUB. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Does this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ruling in our Mishnah that where the brothers SLEPT IN THEIR OWN HOUSES they are under the obligation to make separate contributions to the 'erub, from which it is evident that if they slept in their father's house it is only he who must make a contribution to the 'erub');">⁵⁰</span>

בית דירה סלקא דעתך אלא אימא מקום דירה

then imply that the night's lodgingplace<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not the place where they have their meals.');">⁵¹</span> is the cause of the obligation of 'erub?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Apparently it does; how then could Rab maintain infra that one's obligation to a separate contribution to an 'erub is dependent on one's dining-place?');">⁵²</span> - Rab Judah citing flab replied: This was learnt only in respect of such as receive a maintenance allowance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From their father. They did not actually have their meals at his house.');">⁵³</span> Our Rabbis taught: A man who has in his neighbour's courtyard a gate-house, an exedra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁵⁴</span>

מאי מקום דירה רב אמר

or a balcony imposes no restrictions upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the movement of objects in his courtyard on the Sabbath.');">⁵⁵</span> [One, however, who has in it] a straw-magazine, a cattle-pen, a room for wood or a storehouse does impose restrictions upon him. R'Judah ruled: Only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions. It once happened, R'Judah related, that Ben Nappaha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'a locksmith'.');">⁵⁶</span> had five courtyards at Usha, and when the matter was submitted to the Sages they ruled: Only a dwelling-house imposes restrictions.' A dwelling-house'! Is such a ruling imaginable? Rather say: A dwelling-place. What is meant by a 'dwelling-place'? - Rab explained: